HANDEDNESS CAN BE EXPLAINED BY A SERIAL HYBRID CONTROL SCHEME

被引:32
作者
Yadav, V. [3 ]
Sainburg, R. L. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Milton S Hershey Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, Hershey, PA USA
[2] Penn State Univ, Milton S Hershey Med Ctr, Coll Med, Hershey, PA 17033 USA
[3] Penn State Univ, Dept Kinesiol, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
关键词
motor lateralization; handedness; dynamic dominance; motor control; predictive control; impedance control; BLOOD-FLOW CHANGES; MANUAL ASYMMETRIES; PERFORMANCE ASYMMETRIES; FINAL POSITION; ARM ADVANTAGES; MOTOR DEFICITS; LIMB DYNAMICS; DOMINANT ARM; HUMAN BRAIN; MOVEMENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.08.026
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Our previous studies on healthy individuals and stroke patients led us to propose that the dominant and non-dominant arms are specialized for distinct motor control processes. We hypothesize that the dominant arm is specialized for predictive control of limb dynamics, and the nondominant arm is specialized for impedance control. We previously introduced a hybrid control scheme to explain lateralization of single-joint elbow movements. In this paper we apply a similar computational framework to explore interlimb differences in multi-joint reaching movements: the movements of both arms are initiated using predictive control mechanisms, and terminated using impedance mechanisms. Four parameters characterize predictive mechanisms, four parameters characterize impedance mechanisms, and the ninth parameter describes the instant of switch between the two modes of control. Based on our hypothesis of motor lateralization, we predict an early switch to impedance control for the nondominant arm, but a late switch, near the end of motion, for the dominant arm. We fit our model to multi-joint reaching movements of each arm, made in the horizontal plane. Our results reveal that the more curved trajectories of the nondominant arm are characterized by an early switch to impedance mechanisms, in the initial phase of motion near peak velocity. In contrast, the trajectories of the dominant arm were best fit, when the switch to impedance mechanisms occurred late in the deceleration phase of motion. These results support a model of motor lateralization in which the dominant controller is specialized for predictive control of task dynamics, while the nondominant arm is specialized for impedance control mechanisms. For the first time, we are able to operationally define handedness expressed during multi-joint movements by applying a computational control model. (C) 2014 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:385 / 396
页数:12
相关论文
共 56 条
[1]  
Aboitiz F, 2003, BIOL RES, V36, P89, DOI 10.4067/S0716-97602003000100007
[2]   CONTROL OF MOVEMENT IN THE PREFERRED AND NON-PREFERRED HANDS [J].
ANNETT, J ;
ANNETT, M ;
HUDSON, PTW ;
TURNER, A .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1979, 31 (NOV) :641-652
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2013, DIVIDED BRAINS BIOL
[4]   Nondominant arm advantages in load compensation during rapid elbow joint movements [J].
Bagesteiro, LB ;
Sainburg, RL .
JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2003, 90 (03) :1503-1513
[5]   Handedness: Dominant arm advantages in control of limb dynamics [J].
Bagesteiro, LB ;
Sainburg, RL .
JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2002, 88 (05) :2408-2421
[6]  
Bogen JB, 1969, BASIC MECH EPILEPSIE, P439
[7]   THE CONTRIBUTION OF VISION TO ASYMMETRIES IN MANUAL AIMING [J].
CARSON, RG ;
CHUA, R ;
ELLIOTT, D ;
GOODMAN, D .
NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 1990, 28 (11) :1215-1220
[8]   MANUAL ASYMMETRIES - OLD PROBLEMS AND NEW DIRECTIONS [J].
CARSON, RG .
HUMAN MOVEMENT SCIENCE, 1993, 12 (05) :479-506
[9]   Hemispheric differences in the control of limb dynamics: a link between arm performance asymmetries and arm selection patterns [J].
Coelho, Chase J. ;
Przybyla, Andrzej ;
Yadav, Vivek ;
Sainburg, Robert L. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2013, 109 (03) :825-838
[10]   Activation of distinct motor cortex regions during ipsilateral and contralateral finger movements [J].
Cramer, SC ;
Finklestein, SP ;
Schaechter, JD ;
Bush, G ;
Rosen, BR .
JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 1999, 81 (01) :383-387